US, Russia Agree on Ceasefire in Southwestern Syria

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has announced that the United States and Russia have agreed on a ceasefire in southwestern Syria, aiming to halt all fighting in the area, and according to US officials allowing the rebels to shift their focus to fighting against ISIS.

Details are still scant on this, and it’s not clear how far east the ceasefire is intended to extend. US officials say the entire goal is to stop attacks against the rebels, while Russia clearly wants the US to stop attacking pro-government forces in the region. There has also been mention of humanitarian aid being allowed in, but past ceasefires have almost uniformly failed at that goal.

The ceasefire is to begin at noon on Sunday, and is open-ended. Tillerson said it could be a first step which, if successful, would be spread to other parts of the country. He also, however, added that the US still insists upon Syrian President Assad and his entire family being removed from any positions of power in Syria.

While this is not the first US-Russia ceasefire brokered in Syria, it’s the first in quite some time, as recent Syrian ceasefires have been brokered mostly by Russia, Turkey, and Iran, with the US insisting that the deals don’t apply to their ongoing military operations.

31 thoughts on “US, Russia Agree on Ceasefire in Southwestern Syria”

Russia may or may not be ok with Assad stepping down eventually, but what if Assad refuses to step down or insists on being included in future elections? This would be the reply of Russia, who is the US to decide the leadership of Syria? Meanwhile Kurt Volker has been appointed to head Ukraine talks, one look at this wiki page is enough to tell you McCain and the CIA are still ruling American foreign policy !

“added that the US still insists upon Syrian President Assad and his
entire family being removed from any positions of power in Syria.”
At the same time, let us ensure that all Clintons, Bushes, Obamas, Brzezinskis, Kissingers, Reagans…. are never allowed into power again in the USA.

It all depends on what kind of war — how it is fought and what its objectives are.

In any kind of conventional warfare scenario with limited and straightforward objectives and no other players to account for, the US would quickly and thoroughly defeat the Russians.

On the other hand, it’s been firmly established over the last 50-odd years that the US is no good at winning long-term wars involving conquest and occupation of territory where its technological advantages in straightforward battle don’t make the difference. It lost in Vietnam, it lost in Iraq, and it lost in Afghanistan.

That electro magnetic field is nonsense lemme guess you’re talking about the ship that supposedly was frozen due to magnetic waves that was proven a hoax.As for the jet’s that kept buzzing our destroyer’s in the black sea we just equipped them with huge lasers that can truly freeze a fighter jets instrument panels and jam it’s radar capabilities.Understand one thing comrade we got this.USA

Land-battle where? Kaliningrad?
Since our tanks cannot yet fly any conventional battle on Russian soil needs the invasion of Belarus and/or Ukraine for another battle say at Borodino. That is why Hitler had to invade Poland.
Or invade from the Baltic States.
Or are you talking about an amphibious landing on Kamchatka?
If US Armed Forces can win as you say any conventional battle scenario then the US can in principle successfully invade and conquer Russia. Except that our current army is not large enough to sustain the huge casualties.
And what do you mean by limited objectives? Invade from Estonia, take Novgorod for a few days and out again?
Even before the first US regiment has crossed the Estonian-Russian border the Russian satellite system knows exactly what our deployment is.
If we cannot establish air superiority every battle will be lost.

The T34 tank demonstrates that one cannot precisely know what the defensive capabilities of an enemy’s armed forces are until there is real battles. The Germans got a nasty surprise.
“Thoroughly defeating the Russians” is not winning a single or even a few battles. It means the total destruction of the ability of Russia to defend itself. It means surrender. That at the very least demands the taking of Moscow. Not St. Petersburg. Not Stalingrad. Only Moscow.

NATO defeat Russia in a land war on the Eurasian land mass? You have got to be kidding. The most effective fighting force ever assembled- the Wehrmacht and its allies- was not able to take Moscow. Do you seriously think that the overstretched US Armed Forces, who have not fought an enemy at rough conventional parity since they took on the Chinese in Korea (and that ended in a stalemate), could “easily defeat” Russia you must be delusional.

All the Deep Swamp worms have to do is staging another “gas attack’ false flag and immediately blame it on Assad without investigating. The mainstream deceptive media are already on board to disseminate the lies.

Russia won in Ukraine. The two eastern territories, the DPR and LPR, are de facto independent and Crimea has returned to its Russian homeland. Sure, Russia is cautious and does not want conflict with the West, and it is not spoiling for a conflict with the west, but it is hardly another Iraq or Libya. The US leadership is under the delusion of invincibility, since it has not decisively beaten another conventional power at rough parity since 1952. Grenada and Panama do not count.

I thought Russia NEVER invaded Ukraine comrade???I thought they signed a treaty to never encroach on Ukraine’s sovereignty in exchange for Ukraine giving up it’s nuclear arsenal.Wow!!! So if you negotiate with the Russians and sign a treaty with them if what you’re saying is true you can’t trust them to honor they’re word? I couldn’t agree more,when you’re right you’re right.USA

Maybe if the pro-EU Ukrainians collude with USA to have a $5,000,000,000.00 putsch and then turns against the Rusophones….MAYBE they lose their concession that shotgun treaty afforded… Wars Change things and so do putsches…

Please don’t forget to address the Prime Minister of Russia’s giant palace he built for himself while the ordinary Russians scrape by on a worthless ruble.I don’t know about you Russians but,I’m sure glad we have a choice of who leads our nation and aren’t STUCK with one man forever.USA

You seem to be forgetting how Hillary and Victoria Nuland successfully unseated the legally elected president, and replaced him with. Followers of Adolph Hilter…. Think about the fook Europe phone call between Nuland, and Jeffrey Piat where SHE says “Yaz” is our guy…. The repossession of the Crimea was blowback from the Clinton/Nuland putsch. Breech of contract!